Porto -v- Arsenal

OPENROAD

jasonorr wrote: »

. It's the injuries that we can't cope with really!

What team could

Prisoner6409

Of course there is a problem scoring goals given the amount of chances they create. Arsenal need a top quality center half and an out an out striker but Wenger just will not spend and it'll all getting a bit tired at the mo. Every year it's the same story, Arsenal fail to deliver.

Headshot

OPENROAD wrote: »

Ronnie Whelan :mad:

what ?

Spiritoftheseventies

jasonorr wrote: »

If you look at our squad, we're just missing a solid keeper really and a bit more depth. It's the injuries that we can't cope with really!

Would you subscribe to the notion that Fabregas may leave due to clubs lack of ambition? that Wenger hasn't brought in the right players?

OPENROAD

Headshot wrote: »

what ?

sky + the analysis, just watching it now, awful pundit imo

Headshot

OPENROAD wrote: »

sky + the analysis, just watching it now, awful pundit imo

i was watching it live and there showing the bayern match atm, so I didnt know what you were talking about

it was a good laugh eh

OPENROAD

Headshot wrote: »

i was watching live and there showing the bayern match atm

it was a good laugh eh

Yup, I love Bill, Dunphy and Giles

Headshot

OPENROAD wrote: »

Yup, I love Bill, Dunphy and Giles

lighten up Ronnie is a legend in the making :pac:

L'prof

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

Would you subscribe to the notion that Fabregas may leave due to clubs lack of ambition? that Wenger hasn't brought in the right players?

He was always going to leave sooner or later, winning a trophy may prolong that decision. Arsenal had to move to the new stadium in order to compete in the transfer market in the future, especially after Wenger leaves, and that is the main reason we haven't brought in "the right players".

How much money do you think these players cost by the way? We've spent a bit of money on Arshavin, Nasri and Vermaelen recently but we had to sell players to finance this!

OPENROAD

Headshot wrote: »

lighten up Ronnie is a legend in the making

maybe will give him time

Dunphy" ........Liverpool have no team " :D

Spiritoftheseventies

OPENROAD wrote: »

maybe will give him time

Dunphy" ........Liverpool have no team " :D

Time for Ronnie to move on. Bring back chippy.

Headshot

OPENROAD wrote: »

maybe will give him time

Dunphy" ........Liverpool have no team " :D

gone bust

OPENROAD

Headshot wrote: »

gone bust

really putting the boot in

Frisbee

I can't watch RTE if Ronnie is on the panel. He is the most ill informed, biased, idiotic pundit (I use that word lightly) on telly.

Spiritoftheseventies

Frisbee wrote: »

I can't watch RTE if Ronnie is on the panel. He is the most ill informed, biased, idiotic pundit (I use that word lightly) on telly.

yes Ronnie undoing all the great work he did as a player at anfield with his terrible punditry.

tony1kenobi

Sol Campbell.One laidback motherf*cker.

Galvasean

Pro. F wrote: »

Good point from Eamo there on RTE about the ref. It's a poor decision from him getting so involved in getting the ball back and letting the free be taken quickly

I couldn't believe he let the quick free kick stand after he all but took the ball off Fabianski.
What's really annoying is that Arsenal were all over Porto like a rash in the second half up to that point, playing great football and making loads of chances. Once the goal went in they completely lost their rhythm and shape. I suppose it must be confidence killing to see all your hard work undone by another woeful calamity. It's weird, both of Porto's goals weren't even proper chances. The first one was a poor cross that the keeper made a hash of, while the second really was nothing, until Campbell and Fabianski's mix up.

Mitch Connor

Funny how wenger gives out about the quick free kick when he has been quoted as saying the attacking team should be able to take it as quick as they like.

L'prof

Mitch Connor wrote: »

Funny how wenger gives out about the quick free kick when he has been quoted as saying the attacking team should be able to take it as quick as they like.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCWjioIR5MM

OPENROAD

jasonorr wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCWjioIR5MM

I miss you Thierry :(

ctrl-alt-delete

I didn't get to see the match lastnight,

Just saw the highlights there,

People comparing the free kick last night to "quick ones" that have gone in before is not right in my opinion, i don't remember one ever being allowed in that situation.

First off, i don't think it was an intentional backpass, which is stated it must be in the laws of the game, 2nd of all you can ignore that because Fabianski should not have even taken that chance, he should have belted it away.

I blame Fabianski for the goal, a) for the howler in picking it up and b) giving the ball back so quickly to the ref, he was switched off at the time.

In fairness though the defending side need to be given at least a chance of defending, given how close the free kick was how it was played was laughable and i'd be furious if i was Wenger.

The referee was even blocking Cambell (not that he was ready to defend). So in essence it was 2 on 1, not counting fabianski as he was out of position and switchedf off.

As i have heard Wenger say a penalty would have been easier to defend in that situation.

Arsenal are still in it though, the away goal will be key. I wonder will Fabianksi be playing, what a howler he had lastnight.

krankykitty

I just saw the highlights myself. That referee is a calamity. I can't believe after the Thierry Henry handball he's still allowed to referee at this level, and his performance last night highlights that stupid actions wasn't a one off :rolleyes:

BaZmO*

jasonorr wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCWjioIR5MM

What's that they say about these things even out over time?

Spiritoftheseventies

OPENROAD wrote: »

Blame the keeper imo. Saw enough tonight to suggest we will be ok in the return leg.

As Gilesie said, Campbell could have let the ball run back to Fabianski. Think Whelan on this occassion was right about Campbell. Struggled over all last night. Was very apparent from the highlights.

everdead.ie

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

As Gilesie said, Campbell could have let the ball run back to Fabianski. Think Whelan on this occassion was right about Campbell. Struggled over all last night. Was very apparent from the highlights.

I thought Campbell was very good apart from the back pass his positioning was sound and he was only caught for pace once as far as I can remember Arsenal based on last night should be able to win in London

cson

Campbell had a good game.

Mr Alan

thought campbell had a decent game too tbh

Iago

ctrl-alt-delete wrote: »

People comparing the free kick last night to "quick ones" that have gone in before is not right in my opinion, i don't remember one ever being allowed in that situation.

In fairness though the defending side need to be given at least a chance of defending, given how close the free kick was how it was played was laughable and i'd be furious if i was Wenger.

I know it's just your opinion, but in my opinion you're wrong.

Firstly it's exactly like all the other quick free kicks that have ever been allowed. You are allowed to take a free kick quickly, all you need to do is inform the ref that you're doing so.

Secondly, there should be no onus on the ref to protect the side that's guilty of the infringement. When a referree tells a team to wait for the whistle, it's not to give the defending team time to get into position, it's because the attacking team have asked him to ensure that the nearest defending player is at least 10 yards away. The advantage, if there is one, is to the attacking team to get space for the free that they want to take.

I can remember 3 occasions off the top of my head of teams I've been in that have scored almost identical goals to last night and in each case the goal was given. While you can make allowances for LSL players switching off like that it should never happen to professionals.

inforfun

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

As Gilesie said, Campbell could have let the ball run back to Fabianski. Think Whelan on this occassion was right about Campbell. Struggled over all last night. Was very apparent from the highlights.

I could make highlights that is showing that Campbell had his best game ever. It is hightlights so what do you show and what do you not show?

He was found out once on pace but made a brilliant recovery tackle on that occasion.
Scored the goal.
And the mess that caused the 2nd goal is 95% the keepers fault.
A keeper has the entire pitch in front of him, he can see where the danger is coming from and should have hoofed that ball direction Cape Town.
Only error Campbell made there was that he trusted the goalkeeper to deal with it.

Found the match commentators rather odd. One was slagging off campbell as much as he could while the other one was defending him like he was his son.

ctrl-alt-delete

Iago wrote: »

I know it's just your opinion, but in my opinion you're wrong.

Firstly it's exactly like all the other quick free kicks that have ever been allowed. You are allowed to take a free kick quickly, all you need to do is inform the ref that you're doing so.

Secondly, there should be no onus on the ref to protect the side that's guilty of the infringement. When a referree tells a team to wait for the whistle, it's not to give the defending team time to get into position, it's because the attacking team have asked him to ensure that the nearest defending player is at least 10 yards away. The advantage, if there is one, is to the attacking team to get space for the free that they want to take.

I doubt very much that the attacking team always decide what happens as regards this type of situation, why then have i seen occasions where a team want to take a quick one or have taken a quick one and are not allowed to do so? It is because it is the ref's decision as to how it pans out.

It would be interesting to know for sure if the player asked the ref to be able to take a quick one, and in what language he done so in. The ref was poor in my opinion, he was blocking Campbell and din't look to me as though he knew a quick one was going to happen, he just let it go after it happened.

EDIT:

Just watching it again there, there can be no way the player asked for a quick free kick, It could be argued in demanding the ball he was asking so, but for the ref to hand it to him like that is unethical in my view.

The Ref and Fabianski have their back to the play when the player kicks it, in doing so the ref was blocking Campbell, it is only as the ball is heading in that the ref raises his hand to indicate the indirect freekick.

Now i agree with the idea and prinicipal or giving the attacking team an advantage with free kicks, but how you can say that what happened last night is fair and should be allowed happen is wrong in my opinion.

Mitch Connor

ctrl-alt-delete wrote: »

I doubt very much that the attacking team always decide what happens as regards this type of situation, why then have i seen occasions where a team want to take a quick one or have taken a quick one and are not allowed to do so? It is because it is the ref's decision as to how it pans out.

It would be interesting to know for sure if the player asked the ref to be able to take a quick one, and in what language he done so in. The ref was poor in my opinion, he was blocking Campbell and din't look to me as though he knew a quick one was going to happen, he just let it go after it happened.

you would imagine that if he knew it was happening, that he might have been looking to get himself in position to officiate on it, rather than having his back to it looking down the other end of the pitch when it was kicked.

I don't have a problem with quick free kicks in general, but I just don't like the way it played out last night. the fact the ref took the ball off fabianski and then gave it to the opposition for the quick one just seemed a little wrong

super_furry

One thing - if the 'quick advantage' rule applies in the box, what about penalties?

Hyzepher

How was the ref going to determine if the free kick was taken with a dead ball or not - he wasn't even looking at the play when it was taken?

Roaster

Campbell was Arsenal's best player by a mile last night, which is a sad reflection on the rest of the team.

Diaby was bad! The amount of times he lost possession. There's no bite in midfield at all and as long as Wenger persists with the likes of Denilson and Bender and doesn't address the goalkeeping issue then I'm afraid it'll be a while before we win anything again.

Spiritoftheseventies

Campbell put in some good recovering tackles that compensated for a player short on match practice and youth. But will Wenger risk playing him against a top team. As panel said his first reaction after that back pass was to put his hands on his knees and then straying away from his central position.

SlickRic

i'm fine with quick free kicks, but it felt a little dirty watching the one last night, even though Fabianski was embarrassingly naive. the fact the ref gave the ball to Porto, while his path was blocking Campbell, just did not seem right.

Arsenal have no reliable keepers then?

that's a nasty problem to have.

Roaster

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

Campbell put in some good recovering tackles that compensated for a player short on match practice and youth. But will Wenger risk playing him against a top team.

Not having a go but I don't get this comment. Last night was the biggest game of our season so far, so your comment doesn't add up. Of course he trusts Campbell. Give me Campbell ahead of Silvestre, Senderos (yes I know he's gone out on loan) and Djourou any day of the week.

Spiritoftheseventies

Roaster wrote: »

Not having a go but I don't get this comment. Last night was the biggest game of our season so far, so your comment doesn't add up. Of course he trusts Campbell. Give me Campbell ahead of Silvestre, Senderos (yes I know he's gone out on loan) and Djourou any day of the week.

How many games has Campbell in last year or two. Is his pace and age a liability? Would you concede he was partly to blame for that indirect free both before and after it was awarded?

L'prof

Mitch Connor wrote: »

you would imagine that if he knew it was happening, that he might have been looking to get himself in position to officiate on it, rather than having his back to it looking down the other end of the pitch when it was kicked.

I don't have a problem with quick free kicks in general, but I just don't like the way it played out last night. the fact the ref took the ball off fabianski and then gave it to the opposition for the quick one just seemed a little wrong

The referee burst his gut to get into the box, took the ball off Fabianski who he knew wasn't in position and immediately handed it to the attacker to take the quick free kick, all while not even facing play. He essentially gifted them a goal from nothing. Quick free kicks are part of the game but, the ref was far too enthusiastic to give the attacking team what was a massive advantage. Plus, it should have been a pen for the foul on Rosicky down the other end anyway!!!

L'prof

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

How many games has Campbell in last year or two. Is his pace and age a liability? Would you concede he was partly to blame for that indirect free both before and after it was awarded?

Of course he was partly to blame but the ball hit off him, he didn't move to touch it. Campbell had a solid game apart from that, he was beaten for pace once and recovered very well. Fabianski was horrendous and our midfielders gave away a lot of sloppy passes.

Spiritoftheseventies

jasonorr wrote: »

Of course he was partly to blame but the ball hit off him, he didn't move to touch it. Campbell had a solid game apart from that, he was beaten for pace once and recovered very well. Fabianski was horrendous and our midfielders gave away a lot of sloppy passes.

Yes Fabianski largely to blame for two goals combined. Gallas was obviously a huge loss at the back.

L'prof

SlickRic wrote: »

i'm fine with quick free kicks, but it felt a little dirty watching the one last night, even though Fabianski was embarrassingly naive. the fact the ref gave the ball to Porto, while his path was blocking Campbell, just did not seem right.

Arsenal have no reliable keepers then?

that's a nasty problem to have.

No, we don't and it's happened all of a sudden because Almunia was always a decent shot stopper, other aspects of his game weren't so good but, now his confidence is completely gone and the only positive thing I've seen him do was that save from Babel. I never though Almunia was good enough and Fabianski is a very similar player so, I always felt we needed another 2 keepers, I just didn't realise how badly!

noodler

Ref's get in the way during games regularly. The game goes on without stoppage. Campbell should have gotten right side alot quicker and took his head out of his hands.

L'prof

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

Yes Fabianski largely to blame for two goals combined. Gallas was obviously a huge loss at the back.

Gallas wouldn't have been involved in that situation but, he's injured so Campbell had to come in and he did very well apart from that incident, can you not just give him that? He had a good game!

Roaster

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

How many games has Campbell in last year or two. Is his pace and age a liability? Would you concede he was partly to blame for that indirect free both before and after it was awarded?

Of course Campbell is partly to blame, but then so is Vermaleen. He was walking back into the box.

SantryRed

Seen the goal there. Absolutely nothing wrong with it.

1. Campbell did try to pass the ball back to Fabianski, Fabianski had come out and just made a balls of it. He was dreadful for both goals.

2. The Porto forward tried to get the ball back and Fabianski wouldn't give it to him. The referee asked for the ball and was given it and gave it straight to the Porto player.

3. Porto took a quick free while Fabianski still had his head up his own hole and scored.

Simple really. Arsenal fell asleep.

sneakyST

amacachi wrote: »

So it's within the rules to be less than 10 yards away if someone takes a "quick" free kick? Or would it then be a penalty if the Porto player had the pass blocked?

No - if the player takes a quick one and the ball is intercepted then tough - play away. If the defender is standing directly over the ball then yellow card and re-take.

Paleface wrote: »

Can someone explain to me when referees will allow a free kick to be taken quickly and when they won't??

Its the greyest of grey areas to me....

We dont "allow" free kicks to be taken quickly. They can be taken quickly as part of the game as a whistle is not required to restart the match after a free kick.
If I blow for a free and get to where the offence occurred the question I ask is , "Do you want 10", if the answer is yes , then wait for whistle, if answer is no then play away. The player can take it before I even get to the spot. There is no obligation to allow a defending team the opportunity to organize themselves for a free kick.

am i bovvered wrote: »

Unfortunately
I missed the match but just caught the highlights of the goal.
It has to be said that the refereeing decision might have been within the rules but is highly unusual. He has his back to the player when the indirect free kick is taken and the ref is unbstructing the defender IMO the goal should not have been allowed.

The referee is part of the field of play so the players must play around him. However it was just bad positioning and the free kick was taken within the laws.

leninbenjamin wrote: »

He dropped his arms before the kick was taken, so you can see why it would be misinterpreted. He failed in his obligations, kick shouldn't have been allowed.

Incorrect Lenin. If I blow for offside, therefore indirect free kick, I can lower my arm while I get in position.If the kick is taken in the meantime then so be it.

ctrl-alt-delete wrote: »

I doubt very much that the attacking team always decide what happens as regards this type of situation,
It would be interesting to know for sure if the player asked the ref to be able to take a quick one, and in what language he done so in. The ref was poor in my opinion, he was blocking Campbell and din't look to me as though he knew a quick one was going to happen, he just let it go after it happened.
EDIT:

Just watching it again there, there can be no way the player asked for a quick free kick,

He doesnt have to ask for a quick kick he can play on..........

super_furry wrote: »

One thing - if the 'quick advantage' rule applies in the box, what about penalties?

No kicks from the penalty mark must be taken in accordance with the laws.

Hyzepher wrote: »

How was the ref going to determine if the free kick was taken with a dead ball or not - he wasn't even looking at the play when it was taken?

His assistant could have signaled if the kick was not taken in accordance with the laws.

SlickRic wrote: »

i'm fine with quick free kicks, but it felt a little dirty watching the one last night, even though Fabianski was embarrassingly naive. the fact the ref gave the ball to Porto, while his path was blocking Campbell, just did not seem right.

The only question about the manner in which the ref took the ball could be, was the process in the spirit of the laws? however the keeper has no right to walk off with the ball in his hands either, delaying play.

L'prof

sneakyST wrote: »

No - if the player takes a quick one and the ball is intercepted then tough - play away. If the defender is standing directly over the ball then yellow card and re-take.



We dont "allow" free kicks to be taken quickly. They can be taken quickly as part of the game as a whistle is not required to restart the match after a free kick.
If I blow for a free and get to where the offence occurred the question I ask is , "Do you want 10", if the answer is yes , then wait for whistle, if answer is no then play away. The player can take it before I even get to the spot. There is no obligation to allow a defending team the opportunity to organize themselves for a free kick.




The referee is part of the field of play so the players must play around him. However it was just bad positioning and the free kick was taken within the laws.



Incorrect Lenin. If I blow for offside, therefore indirect free kick, I can lower my arm while I get in position.If the kick is taken in the meantime then so be it.



He doesnt have to ask for a quick kick he can play on..........



No kicks from the penalty mark must be taken in accordance with the laws.



His assistant could have signaled if the kick was not taken in accordance with the laws.



The only question about the manner in which the ref took the ball could be, was the process in the spirit of the laws? however the keeper has no right to walk off with the ball in his hands either, delaying play.

What of the penalty shout?

leninbenjamin

sneakyST wrote: »

Incorrect Lenin. If I blow for offside, therefore indirect free kick, I can lower my arm while I get in position.If the kick is taken in the meantime then so be it.

FIFA wrote:

The referee indicates an indirect free kick by raising his arm above his head. He maintains his arm in that position until the kick has been taken and the ball has touched another player or goes out of play.

Sorry, but I cannot see how to resolve your interpretation with the above from FIFA. The above law clearly states the referee has an obligation to clearly and continuously signal an indirect freekick, before, during and after it's been taken, which he didn't do. Or is the another block of text int he guidelines I'm missing?

astrofool

It was self inflicted by Arsenal, yes, the ref should have got out of the way of Campbell, but, beside that, did nothing wrong. Campbell reacted too late to do anything about it, even if the ref hadn't been there.